ACIT, Madurai V. M/s. Susee Cars and Trucks (P) Limited, Madurai

ITA 1427/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64442 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIRUDH RAI
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR; A S SRIRAMAN
• Keywords: Gift; Business income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 1424, 1425, 1426, 1427 & 1428/MDS/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 TO 2007-08) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE III, MADURAI. (APPELLANT) V. M/S SUSEE CARS AND TRUCKS (P) LIMITED, 117/3, THENI ROAD, MADURAI. PAN : AAHCS0676E (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIRUDH RAI, CIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR & SHRI A.S. SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATES DATE OF HEARING : 03.10.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.10.2012 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 1.3.2012 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, MADURAI, FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. FOR AL L THESE YEARS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELYING ON CERTAIN SEIZED MATERIA LS RELATING TO A GROUP CONCERN, OPERATING FROM THE SAME PREMISES AS THAT O F THE ASSESSEE, HAD 2 I.T.A. NOS. 1424 TO 1428/MDS/12 MADE AN ADDITION, CONSIDERING EXCESS AMOUNT COLLECT ED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BUYERS OF THE VEHICLES, TOWARDS REGISTRATI ON CHARGE, TO BE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE A.O., ASSESSEE COULD NOT SHOW WITH PROPER EVIDENCE THAT THERE WERE CORRESPONDING EXPEN SES. THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY ESTIMATING A SUM OF ` 2000/- PER VEHICLE AS THE EXCESS AMOUNT COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNTS CONS IDERED FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, WERE AS UNDER:- SL.NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR NO. OF VEHICLES SOLD ADDITION MADE ( `) 1. 2003 - 04 2051 41,02,000 2. 2004 - 05 521 10,42,000 3. 2005 - 06 380 7,60,000 4. 2006 - 07 657 13,14,000 5. 2007 - 08 564 11,28,000 2. ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(APPEALS) FOR ALL THE YEARS. CIT(APPEALS) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF ANOTHER CONCERN COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED F OR UNIVERSAL APPLICATION FOR ALL OTHER CONCERNS FALLING IN THE S AME GROUP. HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IN ASSESSEES CASE, NOTHING WAS FO UND AS EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT ANY AMOUNT WAS COLLECTED FROM CUSTOMERS. AS PER CIT(APPEALS), WHEN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT REJEC TED OR FOUND DEFECTIVE, AN ADDITION ON ESTIMATES COULD NOT BE DO NE. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. S. KHADER KHAN SON (300 ITR 157). 3 I.T.A. NOS. 1424 TO 1428/MDS/12 3. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP BEFORE US, LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SISTER CONCERN FALLING IN THE SAME GROUP, HAD COME UP BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AND IT WAS HELD BY THI S TRIBUNAL THAT ADDITIONS MADE FOR ALLEGED COLLECTIONS FROM CUSTOME RS, WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND, COULD NOT BE SUSTAIN ED. A COPY EACH OF THE ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 29 TH JANUARY, 2010 AND 13 TH JANUARY, 2012 IN THE CASE OF SUSEE AUTO PLAZA (P) LTD. V. AD DL. CIT AND ACIT V. SUSEE VEHICLE DEALERS P. LTD. (I.T.A. NO. 303/MDS/2 011) RESPECTIVELY, WERE PLACED ON RECORD. 4. LEARNED D.R. FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE ISSUE STOOD DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE SISTER CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE SUBMIS SIONS. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE REGARDING ADDITION MADE ON ESTIM ATED RECEIPTS FROM CUSTOMERS FOR GETTING VEHICLES REGISTERED, HAD COME BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ANOTHER CONCERN CALLED SUSEE AUTO PL AZA (P) LTD. (SUPRA), WHICH WAS A SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FA CT SITUATION REMAINS SAME HERE ALSO. THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUSEE AUTO PLAZA (P) LTD. (SUPRA) HAD HELD AT PARA 8 OF ITS ORDER AS UNDER:- 4 I.T.A. NOS. 1424 TO 1428/MDS/12 8. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO TH E RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WITH REFERENCE TO THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE UNDENIABLE FACTS OF THE CASES ARE THAT ADMITTEDLY NO INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WAS EITHER FOUND OR SEIZED, WHICH CAN BE SAID TO BE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY BUT WHATEVER EVIDENCE WAS FOUND WAS RELATED TO THE GROU P COMPANIES. INSOFAR AS ALLEGED EXCESS FAIRLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISS ION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT, IN NO CASE, THIS AM OUNT CAN BE TREATED AS A PART OF THE BUSINESS RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPAN Y. THE SIMPLE REASON FOR THE SAME IS THAT THIS RECEIPT UNLESS IT RELATES TO BUSINESS OF SALE OF TWO WHEELERS, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS RECEIPT. TO GET THE VEHICLES REGISTERED IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMP ANY. IN ANY CASE, IF ANY INCOME IS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FROM THE REG ISTRATION ACTIVITY, IT CAN BE TREATED AS ITS 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES'. BE T HAT AS IT MAY, IT IS NOBODYS CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT COLLECT MONEY FOR G ETTING SOLD VEHICLE REGISTERED AS PER THE LAW OF THE STATE WITH THE CON CERNED ROAD TRANSPORT OFFICE. MOREOVER, IT IS AN ACCEPTED CASE THAT THIS ASSESSEE -COMPANY FACILITATES THE CUSTOMER BY GETTING THEIR VEHICLES REGISTERED. UNDI SPUTEDLY, NO INCRIMINATING DIRECT EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING SEARCH UNDERTAKEN IN ANOTHER GROUP- ASSESSEES CASE. BUT BY DRAWING ANALOGY, WHEN THIS ASPECT WAS EXAMINED, IT WAS FOUND THAT THIS ASSESSEE WAS ALSO COLLECTING SO ME MONEY FOR GETTING THE VEHICLES REGISTERED. WE FIND THAT THIS ASSESSEE WAS COLLECTING RS. 3,310 FOR REGISTRATION OF ONE TWO WHEELER AND CREDITED UNDER THE ACCOUNT CALLED 'REGISTRATION AND DELIVERY CHARGES ACCOUNT' GROUPED UNDER THE INCOME IN THE P&L A/C AND DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 2,763 TOWARDS SAID AMOUNT AND OFFERED REMAINING SUM OF RS. 547 FOR TAXATION. BUT THE AO H AS IGNORED THE DEBIT, ALTHOUGH HE HAS HIMSELF FOUND THIS FACT DURING SEAR CH IN GROUP-ASSESSEES CASE WHO DEALS BOTH IN FOUR WHEELERS AND TWO WHEELE RS AND HAS RELIED MAINLY ON THE STATEMENTS RECORDED IN OTHER CASES FROM THE DIRECTORS WHO ALSO HAPPEN TO BE THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE M AIN REASON FOR DISALLOWANCE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUPPORT THE REMAINING EXPENDITURE WITH THE BILLS/VOUCHERS. THE LEARNED CI T(A) HAS FURTHER REDUCED THE ADDITION BY MAKING HIS OWN ESTIMATION. UNDISPUT EDLY, THIS ADDITION IS BASED ON SHEER ESTIMATION BASED ON STATEMENTS, WHIC H WERE NEVER CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. ANY ADDITION WH ICH IS BASED ON STATEMENTS WHICH WERE NEVER CONFRONTED TO THE ASSES SEE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. NOBODY CAN DENY THAT IN THI S LINE OF BUSINESS WHERE THE ASSESSEE PURCHASES AND SELLS TWO WHEELERS, IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEES SALES AS WELL AS IN THE INTEREST OF THE CUSTOMER AND MORE PARTICULARLY IS TOWARDS LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF SENDIN G A VEHICLE ON THE ROADS ONLY AFTER IT IS REGISTERED AS PER LAW OF THE STATE . THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FACILITATE THE WORK OF REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE, THEREFORE, THIS PART OF SERVICE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS CUSTOMERS WHO ARE A CTUALLY REQUIRED TO TAKE THE VEHICLE ON ROADS ONLY AFTER GETTING IT REGISTER ED, MAY BE A TEMPORARY REGISTRATION FOR A LIMITED PERIOD, BEGOT BY THE ASS ESSEE-COMPANY, BUT IN THE LARGER INTEREST AND EXPEDIENCY OF THE ASSESSEES BU SINESS, THIS GESTURE IS A SORT OF HELP PROVIDED TO THE CUSTOMERS AND OF COURS E IN THE LARGER INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS. BUT ANY AMOUNT COLLECTED F OR THAT PURPOSE, WITH WHATEVER NAME IT IS CALLED, TO FACILITATE THE CUSTO MER, CANNOT BE TREATED AS, BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, AS BUSINESS RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE AO HAS ESTIMATED SUCH A COLLECTION ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN GROUP 5 I.T.A. NOS. 1424 TO 1428/MDS/12 CONCERNS CASE BUT NOT DIRECTLY IN THIS ASSESSEES CASE. THE ESTIMATION IS BASED ON, OF COURSE CERTAIN RECORDS FOUND IN GROUP CONCERNS CASE, AS WELL AS ON ADMISSIONS MADE BY THE COMMON DIRECTORS BUT IN O THER ASSESSEES CASE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THIS SERVICE IS PR OVIDED TO THE CUSTOMERS TO HELP THEM OUT IN GETTING THEIR VEHICLES REGISTERED FOR WHICH LEGAL FEES, ETC., ALONG WITH SUNDRY EXPENSES LIKE TYPING, FEES FOR PU RCHASING FORM OF REGISTRATION, STAMPS AFFIXED TO THE APPLICATION AND THE LIKE INCLUDING SOME EXPENSES GIVEN TO THE PERSON ATTENDING THE WORK IN QUESTION, BUT NOT A SINGLE PIE IS POCKETED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY BEYOND WHAT EVER HAS BEEN DISCLOSED. INSOFAR AS NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASS ESSEE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IS CONCERNED, NOBODY CAN DISPUTE THE SAME AS IT IS A COMMON PLACE EXPERIENCE. WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THE DEPARTMENT THA T THE ASSESSEE REALLY COLLECTS MORE AMOUNT THAN WHAT IS SPENT TOWARDS REG ISTRATION CHARGES PRECISELY BECAUSE THE CUSTOMERS ARE NOT FOOLISH WHO WOULD SPEND MORE MONEY, THAN REQUIRED TO SAVE THEIR HARASSMENT AND T IME IN GETTING THIS PETTY WORK DONE. NO DIRECT EVIDENCE WAS COLLECTED BY THE AO IN THE FORM OF ANY STATEMENT OF ANY OF THE CUSTOMERS, WHICH CAN BE SAI D TO BE A DIRECT AND BEST EVIDENCE, AND THE STATEMENTS OF DIRECTORS AND ROAD TRANSPORT OFFICE WERE RECORDED IN THE CASE OF OTHER CONCERN. OTHERWISE AL SO IN THOSE STATEMENTS IT HAS NOT BEEN ADMITTED THAT ANY PORTION OF THE EXPEN SES SO COLLECTED IS POCKETED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. SO WHAT HAS BEEN STATED IS THAT SOME EXTRA AMOUNT IS COLLECTED FOR FACILITATING THE WORK OF REGISTRATION, ROAD TAX, ETC. AND THAT TOO, ON BEHALF OF THE CUSTOMERS AND FOR TH E HELP OF CUSTOMERS ONLY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT POCKETED ANY PORTION OF THIS AMOUNT, IT WOULD NOT BE WORTHWHILE TO DISCUSS ABOUT UNLAWFUL EXPENDITURE WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN SPENT IN GETTING THE REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE TH AT IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED OR NOT BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ON THAT POINT AS THAT POINT IS N OT DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE AO HAS ESTIMATED EXTRA COLLECT ION AT RS. 2,000 PER VEHICLE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCES COLLECTED IN A DI FFERENT ASSESSEES CASE AND THAT TOO, IS NOT RELEVANT BECAUSE THERE IS NO ADMIS SION OF POCKETING ANY PORTION OF THIS AMOUNT BY THEM ALSO. AS CONTRAST TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS COME TO A DIFFERENT FIGURE. THE PLEA TAK EN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ESTIMATION DONE AT RS. 2,000 PER VEHICLE WAS IN REL ATION TO FOUR WHEELERS AND NOT TWO WHEELERS WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS UNDENIABLY DEALING IN TWO WHEELERS ONLY AND THIS FACT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE CORRECT BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND REMAINED UNCONTROVERTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THIS FAC T HAS NOT BEEN DENIED EVEN BEFORE US. AS FAR AS TWO WHEELERS ARE CONCERNE D, AS PER PARA 7.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 23RD DEC., 2008 WITH REFERENCE TO SEIZED MATERIAL IN THE GROUP CASE, MARKED AS WVS/B&D/S-I(16) FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ALSO CONTAINS SALE RECORDS OF TWO WHEELERS PERTAINI NG TO OTHER CONCERNS, IN WHICH RECEIPT OF RS. 3,310 WAS NOTICED AS A RECEIPT ISSUED TO EACH PURCHASER ON ACCOUNT OF REGISTRATION AND ROAD TAX EXPENSES. A S PER RTOS INFORMATION, ACTUAL EXPENSES ARE RS. 2,500 TOWARDS ROAD TAX AND RS. 60 TOWARDS REGISTRATION TOTALLING TO RS.2,560 PER VEHICLE. IN THIS WAY, AFTER DEDUCTING THIS AMOUNT FROM RS. 3,310, EXTRA AMOUNT COLLECTED COMES TO RS. 750 ONLY. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO ACCEPTED INCIDENTAL EXPENSE S OF RS. 150 PER VEHICLE. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ENTIRE EXCESS AMOUNT, IF ANY, COLLECTED WAS HELD IN TRUST BY THE COMPANY AND IT DID NOT ACC OUNT TOWARDS THE ASSESSEE-COMPANYS INCOME. THIS PLEA WAS TURNED DOW N BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE REASONING THAT THERE BEING NO CONTRAC TUAL LIABILITY SHOWN IN THIS 6 I.T.A. NOS. 1424 TO 1428/MDS/12 REGARD AND MOREOVER, A PART OF EXTRA AMOUNT SO COLL ECTED HAS BEEN CREDITED TO THE P&L A/C AS INCOME. SINCE THIS ASSESSMENT IS BAS ED ON SEARCH MATERIAL, PRESUMPTIONS CANNOT OVERRIDE THE MATERIAL FACTS UNE ARTHED IN GROUP ASSESSEES, BECAUSE, HAD THERE BEEN SEARCH IN THIS A SSESSEES CASE THEN PRESUMPTION COULD HAVE BEEN A VALID MODE FOR ESTIMA TING EXTRA INCOME IN THIS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE, VIDE LETTER DT. 6TH OCT., 20 08 HAD PLEADED THAT IT COLLECTED MONEY FROM THE CUSTOMERS TOWARDS ROAD TAX , REGISTRATION, APPLICATION FORM EXPENSES, REGISTRATION FEES AND OTHER INCIDENT AL REGISTRATION EXPENSES AND ACCOUNTED THEM FOR UNDER THE HEAD 'ADMINISTRATI VE INCOME ACCOUNT'. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT OUT OF SUCH AMOUNT, MONEY W AS SPENT TOWARDS TAXES, REGISTRATION FEES, STAMP FEES, POSTAL EXPENSES, POO JA EXPENSES, PETROL EXPENSES, PAYMENT TO PERSON ENTRUSTED WITH THE JOB OF REGISTERING THE VEHICLES, ETC. THE CASE OF THE ASSES-SEE-COMPANY IS THAT ALL THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED ON BEHALF OF THE BUYERS. THESE EXPENS ES WERE ALSO DEBITED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE INCOME ACCOUNT AND THE NET OF TH E INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE WAS INCLUDED IN THE P&L A/C OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY . THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED, TO SOME EXTENT, THAT CERTAIN PETTY EX PENSES WHICH DO NOT AMOUNT TO PROHIBITED GIFTS ARE INCIDENTAL TO THE WO RK IN QUESTION AND HAVE TO BE LEGITIMATELY INCURRED AND FOR THAT VOUCHERS CANN OT BE OBTAINED. HE HAS ACCEPTED THE DEDUCTIBILITY OF SUCH PETTY EXPENSES. HE HAS ESTIMATED RS. 150 TOWARDS NECESSARY EXPENSES AND HAS HELD THEM ALLOWA BLE AS DEDUCTION AND BALANCE OF RS. 600 PER VEHICLE HAS BEEN TREATED AS EXCESS COLLECTION FOR WHICH NO CORRESPONDING DEDUCTION WOULD BE AVAILABLE . AS STATED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS COLLECTED RS. 3,310 BUT HAS DEBITED ON LY RS. 2,763. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, RS. 2,560 PER VEHICLE HAS BEEN TRE ATED AS VALID EXPENDITURE. THEREAFTER ONLY RS. 203 REMAINS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR. THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESS EE. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ESTIMATED RS. 150 AS PETTY EXPENSES TOWARDS POO JA, ETC., WHICH ARE TREATED AS PERMISSIBLE. IN CASE, THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 150 IS REDUCED FROM RS. 203, RS. 53 REMAINS WITH THE ASSESSEE BUT BECAUSE T HE ESTIMATION DONE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS SIMPLICITOR AN AD HOC ESTIMAT ION AND GIVEN IN THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF T HE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT EVEN RS. 53 CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY AS ITS BUSINESS INCOME. IN CASE ANYBODY HAS TO COMMUTE TWO/THREE TIMES TO RTOS OFFICE, FOR GETTING THE REGISTRATION , A GOOD AMOUNT IS SPENT EVEN ON PETROL. THEREFORE, IN THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHERE (I) NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT WAS FOUND IN TH IS ASSESSEES CASE, (II) WHATEVER HAS BEEN FOUND AS EVIDENCE IS FOUND IN THE ASSESSEES GROUP CASE WHO MAINLY DEALS IN FOUR WHEELERS, (III) NO EVIDENC E WAS COLLECTED FROM ANY CUSTOMER WHICH CAN BE A DIRECT AND BEST EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD, (IV) THIS AMOUNT WHICH IS TAKEN IN TRUST FOR GETTING THE VEHI CLE REGISTERED, ETC., CANNOT BE A PART OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS, (V) THAT BARR ING ANY UNLAWFUL EXPENSES EVEN LEGITIMATE EXPENSES ARE REQUIRED, (VI) THAT TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN EITHER REJECTED OR FOUND DEF ECTIVE, (VII) NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND RELATABLE WITH THE ASSESSEES CASE DIRECT LY FROM THE ASSESSEE OR ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ANY ESTIMATION UNDER S. 153C CAN BE DONE, NO SUCH ADDITION CAN BE MADE. THE ENTIRE ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN THIS ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND 7 I.T.A. NOS. 1424 TO 1428/MDS/12 AGAINST THE REVENUE. THE CONNECTED GROUNDS RAISED I N THE REVENUES APPEALS, FOR ALL THE YEARS, ALSO STAND DISMISSED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION, WE ARE O F THE OPINION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE FOR ALL THESE YEARS. NO INTERFERENCE IS WARRANTED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THURSDAY, THE 11 TH OF OCTOBER, 2012, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 11 TH OCTOBER, 2012. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A)-II, MADURAI (4) CIT, CENTRAL-II, CHENNAI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE